Ethical reactive journalism creates us vs. them media

Ethical reactive journalism creates us vs. them media

Ardimas Sasdi, Jakarta

The imprisonment of two journalists from the Koridor Lampung
daily by the Tanjung Karang District Court last week further
added to the long list of court victories by aggrieved members of
the elite against the press over the last few years.

The verdict in the case, which pitted the tabloid against a
legislator from the Golkar Party, showed the powerlessness of the
media in the face of libel law, especially when wielded by
politicians and wealthy businesspeople. It also strengthened
negative perceptions regarding the inconsistency of the legal
system and law enforcement.

These negative perceptions stem from the draconian stance
taken by the court in ordering the immediate detention of the
journalists, in marked contrast to the usual approach adopted by
the courts in corruption cases. The then House of Representatives
speaker Akbar Tandjung, for example, was sentenced by the Jakarta
District Court to three years in jail upon his conviction in a Rp
3.1 billion (US$ 319,000) malfeasance case, but remained free on
appeal. His conviction was eventually overturned by the Supreme
Court.

The prosecution of Koridor Lampung is one of around 30 libel
prosecutions and civil actions, some of which involved whopping
claims for damages, against the media over the last five years.
Other prominent cases involved Tempo news magazine and
businessmen Tomy Winata, the Koran Tempo daily and Tomy Winata,
the Rakyat Merdeka daily and then president Megawati
Soekarnoputri, Rakyat Merdeka and Akbar Tandjung, the Kompas
daily and businessman Marimutu Sinivasan, and the Sriwijaya Post
daily and former intelligence czar, the late Z.A. Maulani.

The demands of the plaintiffs in these cases included, but
were certainly not limited to, the publication of apologies in
the national media and the payment of millions of dollars in
damages. These demands, which sent chills down the spines of
press executives and owners, proved that the primary aim was not
to defend the good names and honor of the plaintiffs, but rather
to attack and punish the media.

No studies have been conducted on the extent of the damage
inflicted on the publications involved, but the trials always
resulted in great, unanticipated expense, the wasting of time and
energy on the part media executives, and a public clamor over the
role of the media.

The media has two choices in the face of these persistent attacks
by individuals and interest groups, whose primary objective
appears to be far removed from the goal of engendering ethical,
fair and balanced reporting.

The first choice is for the media to put its house in order,
which means an improvement in professional standards and strict
adherence to the journalistic code of ethics.

The second choice is for media outlets, which have recently
become pure commercial entities with the bottom line being higher
profits for shareholders and improved conditions for employees,
to avoid sensitive issues in order to ward off costly court
cases. If this is the route that is taken, then the media will be
responsible for abdicating its essential role in our democratic
society.

Rattled by the unrelenting attacks, media executives and
owners have begun to realize the real and present danger of
operating in an increasingly hostile social, legal and economic
environment. Some media groups, such as the Kompas and Jawa Pos
groups, have taken steps to ensure their survival by strictly
adhering to jurnalistic ethics and establishment of the
ombudsman.

But, in general, the Indonesian media, which is considered by
some experts to have spun out of control since the onset of the
so-called reform era, has failed to improve its professionalism
and adhere to jurnalistic ethics. Or, at best, outlets have
reacted in what Conrad C. Fink, a former Associated Press
executive and journalism professor, called "ethical reactive"
mode.

Ethical reactive journalism has two parents -- external
criticism and pressure, and internal turmoil and self-doubt among
journalists themselves who have a growing preoccupation with
whether what they do is ethical, fair and balanced. But this
journalism is defensive to societal criticism of the media, which
is arguably harsher and more determined than ever before.

Meanwhile, the Press Council has reported that more than 50
percent of the 300 written complaints received by the council
from 2000 to 2003 were about news reports that were not up to
professional standards or in violation of the jurnalistic code of
ethics.

Experts have also attributed the rise in the number of
complaints from the public to factors such as a lack of
understanding of or reluctance by journalists to strictly adhere
to jurnalistic ethics and a poor understanding on the part of
officials and officeholders as regards the concept of public
accountability. The control and oversight functions of the press
are ignored by officials or even regarded as acts of defamation.

The current gloomy situation has been aggravated by a
disruption in the training and education of journalists, the
failure to inculcate an awareness of jurnalistic ethics among
press workers and the public at large, and a drastic change in
the political landscape.

The journalists' associations, Press Council, pro-democracy
activists and other like-minded groups should view this new
reality as a challenge. But so far no action has been taken, and
the prevailing attitude seems to be business as usual.

The author is a staff writer with The Jakarta Post.